I would like to open this topic to everyone whose countries have a mass-migration (of un-skilled labour) problem.

There may be benefits, both short and long term in some instances, and it would be wise to discuss the positives and not just the negative points. And also each country has its own unique experiences, laws and social policies which will affect immigration, immigrants and the problems that this can bring.

Please contribute.

----

Quote:

How would this work? Without a citizenship you'd be hard-pressed to vote and the financial struggle only unfolded into full misery under the Tories, who made immigration very difficult. Also, don't forget that the UK was a colonial power and its open immigration policy had its roots there.

Yoga, Schmoga.

I would like to open this topic to everyone whose countries have a mass-migration (of un-skilled labour) problems.

You may not know this but people from other EU countries can vote in the country that they currently reside in. I have personally witnessed a young couple (+ baby) voting in the local elections in May 2013, chances are that they didnt vote for any political party that is not in favour of ending the current open-border immigration policy that the UK has with the rest of the EU, chances are that they voted for Labour (the main left wing political party in the UK.

Open immigration to the rest of the world can be handled very easily (but isnt being handled well at all) open-borders to most of Europe and its 500-Million citizens is the main problem that can only be resolved by ejecting ourselves from the EU, which is the option that I prefer.

Quote:

The ghettos you mentioned are a result of poor integration policy, a widening gap between rich and poor. Only recently was there talk about making English a mandatory criterion to receive job seekers allowance. And besides, I don't see many white British people cleaning the streets or toilets, working in super markets, ... If anything, everybody seems to be heavily profiteering off the immigrants. Or did you want those jobs?

The widening gap between rich and poor is partly due to the rich having a "cash reserve" where the ordinary person does not, they get into debt as a general rule, or have to sell assets, also a recession wont help, and worse still is unemployment. The more people there are looking for jobs the lower the wages can be pushed down because they will simply employ the best person who will accept the lowest wage. Add to this 2-million unskilled immigrants and the average pay is going to be given a kick to the groin, wages are being forced down by all of these pressures.... but as you would have already spotted, that doesn't include the rich people, that's largely because the richer people are the better skilled people who don't have to compete with 2-million low-skilled immigrants and can continue to demand those higher wages. If for example those 2-million (low skilled) immigrants were ejected tomorrow, wages would increase instantly as unemployment would drop hugely which would instantly reduce the gap between the rich and poor.

If you leave London, (just a few miles from the urban sprawl) the vast majority of people are non-immigrants, its just the cities that are ghettoised, and yes the vast majority of people on supermarket checkouts, cleaning offices and doing all of those "un-skilled" jobs are not immigrants, I know this for a fact because I am basically on the borders of London so I see both sides and there is a vast difference.

Mandatory English speaking to a level that people can understand what you are saying and vice versa should have always been a "requirement" to enter the UK for anything more than a holiday - how can people get a job if they cannot communicate.? The answer is that they cant unless its a mundane low-paid (often illegally paid) job.

Those who are "profiteering" are those people who are employing people illegally, they can usually get away with paying wages in cash that are below the minimum wage because they know that they can get away with it, that barely happens with non-immigrants because non-immigrants wont then get a government pension. There are others who benefit from keeping their employees pay as low as possible (but still legally), that only happens because our current jobs market favours the employers due to so many people being out of work - more people fighting for a wage pushes that wage down.

So, who in the UK benefits from mass unskilled labour migrating to the UK, the migrants benefit, and as I said before, "I don't blame the migrants", I blame the government and EU policies.

Quote:

It's an example of a fantasy. People shouldn't be concerned about it but about people confusing fantasy and reality. They are dangerous indeed. Unlike yoga.

Please elaborate on what you mean.... It makes no real sense.

Quote:

Cities have always had this. Only now transportation costs have dropped enough that instead of the medieval Italian neighborhood you get neighborhoods populated by ethnically incorrect folks (in your eyes) who come from farther away.

Giving examples that fit in with your own location only helps a little, its your wording that has me confused.

If a person or a company owes far more money than it can can earn its insolvent, if that person or company does not take drastic action to solve the problem of money going out faster than its coming in then it becomes bankrupt (at least that's how I understand the jargon). The UK owes £1.2 Trillion, and its increasing not reducing, if that is not what you would call bankrupt then I don't know how an individual or company could go bankrupt at all.

If you're going to believe what Tories or other reactionary bigots say, you're going to end up dramatically misinformed about almost every conceivable topic.Thankfully bankruptcy is a serious, objective issue and your opinion and general cluelessness is irrelevant.Some quick Googling:

Here you can see how much people demand to lend to the UK for 10 years and how that's changed over the last few years. The lower the better.http://www.fixedincomeinvestor.co.uk/x/ ... sh=9315858Here you can get an idea of how the number varies if you change the timeframe, like do people expect to be payed back by the UK in 2060?http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/corporate-bo ... s/uk-giltsAnd here to you can compare the UK's situation with that of other countries:http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates- ... d-indexes/Note the high rates afflicting some Eurozone countries. And they would be (much) higher if there wasn't the prospect of a bailout (Greece especially). Unlike Eurozone countries, individuals and corporations, the UK controls its own monetary policy which is why there's no real prospect of bankruptcy.

As to immigration, I will no more discuss this non-existent open-borders policy with you than I would discuss non-existent Jewish conspiracies with a Neo-Nazi.

If you're going to believe what Tories or other reactionary bigots say, you're going to end up dramatically misinformed about almost every conceivable topic.

You seem to have had a serious mishap with your understanding of my personal concerns.

I don't believe what the Tories tell me, they have lied to me enough for me to reject them and no longer vote for them. Being "reactionary" is hardly a crime, or even wrong in any way, a bigot is a different matter altogether. Also, may I remind you (and other readers) that ALL political parties have their own agenda's, and they ALL stretch the truth to breaking point. Additionally I aim to identify "misinformation" as such and find the truth where possible and ignore blatant lies - the truth is sometimes concealed by governments, sometimes ignored by the media or given huge amounts of attention, but the truth is there and that is what I aim to find.

Quote:

Note the high rates afflicting some Eurozone countries. And they would be (much) higher if there wasn't the prospect of a bailout (Greece especially).

I understand how the markets work and why the rates change. As to your differing opinion on what constitutes "bankruptcy", I suggest that we agree to disagree, mostly because its a moot point as we both know the dire financial position that the UK is in as well as other countries.

Quote:

As to immigration, I will no more discuss this non-existent open-borders policy with you than I would discuss non-existent Jewish conspiracies with a Neo-Nazi.

So you don't recognise that millions of people from (most) EU member states have the legal right to move to the UK.? If you agree then you must also agree that must constitute "open borders", if you disagree then you obviously don't understand situation.

As to your differing opinion on what constitutes "bankruptcy", I suggest that we agree to disagree, mostly because its a moot point as we both know the dire financial position that the UK is in as well as other countries.

What constitutes bankruptcy is not an opinion.You obviously don't have a clue about the UK's financial position, or much else apparently (see previous threads about Muslims and whatever else you've been told to fear or hate).

According to UK law, it is impossible for the UK to become bankrupt at all, as it has to be considered "bankrupt" by a Judge, that wont happen...... that all I have to say on the subject.

Quote:

You obviously don't have a clue about the UK's financial position

I have a very good grasp of the UK's financial position. In brief, the UK is currently borrowing money at very low interest rates because of 2 reasons. After the last election the new government (rapidly by governmental standards) put a plan into action to reduce the size of the state a little bit, and do a little to boost peoples spending power, both were aimed at keeping the situation from getting worse (e.g. the size of the Deficit) without plunging the economy into a deep recession (Greece etc)

The government has kept to its plan (which greatly helps market confidence), that has kept the rates low even though our nearest trading block (the Eurozone) is in political turmoil and a dire financial position (overall). There does appear to be some light at the end of a very long tunnel, and the current prospects for the UK appear to be positive - helped along by the US appearing to be in recovery - the same cannot be said for the Eurozone and its lethargic approach to fixing its problems.

Quote:

or much else apparently (see previous threads about Muslims and whatever else you've been told to fear or hate).

NOTE: If I were childish I would have reported your unwarranted rudeness to the moderators, but I wont because I am better than that. I would prefer dialogue, discussion of; ideas, perceptions, real world experiences and ideally backed up by evidence.

I have already denied in strong (but not rude) terms that "I don't follow what others have told people to believe", if I have come to a conclusion about something I will have been persuaded by evidence and reason, rather than simply told "this is true", you must believe it.!

However, it appears to me that your situation is different. Every-time I give an example or provide some evidence to back up my claims or opinions, you simply retort things such as is quoted above - you may be right, but no-one will believe you if you simply exhort statements such as the one above. I (obviously) believe that you are wrong, and that I have won 100% of this argument because there has not been any counter-argument at all.

So, I offer you this as a challenge, provide something more than mild-insults and accusations of "being wrong" and provide some form of argument. Remember, this is a "forum" where "debate" takes place, if you don't respond with a valid argument within 72-hours I will ask the moderators to lock this thread, which I will of course have won. And please don't throw around anymore cheap insults because doing so will only reduce the high standards of this forum.

So you don't recognise that millions of people from (most) EU member states have the legal right to move to the UK.? If you agree then you must also agree that must constitute "open borders", if you disagree then you obviously don't understand situation.

The UK is not a country with "open" borders, but has agreed to free movement of goods and persons as the most fundamental EU treaty. There are more than 20 others countries in the same agreement. What are you afraid off? Must be those nasty language barriers.

The UK is not a country with "open" borders, but has agreed to free movement of goods and persons as the most fundamental EU treaty.

Semantics.

500-Million people in many different countries can legally move into each others countries, work, breed and use that countries services. This is a damned good deal for an enormous number of unskilled migrants that move from poor countries into richer ones, and for those migrants parent country, but it is a very bad deal most of the time for many of those richer countries including the UK.

The fact that this system exists and is entirely legal does not make it a good idea, I have no disagreement with the fact that its EU policy, but like many EU policies I don't believe that its a good policy.

The UK is not a country with "open" borders, but has agreed to free movement of goods and persons as the most fundamental EU treaty.

Semantics.

500-Million people in many different countries can legally move into each others countries, work, breed and use that countries services. This is a damned good deal for an enormous number of unskilled migrants that move from poor countries into richer ones, and for those migrants parent country, but it is a very bad deal most of the time for many of those richer countries including the UK.

The fact that this system exists and is entirely legal does not make it a good idea, I have no disagreement with the fact that its EU policy, but like many EU policies I don't believe that its a good policy.

I still don't see any evidence that free movement of people is a terrible thing. The bad neighbourhoods you are worried about don't seem to stem from European immigration in the first place. As I pointed out previously, it is all about integration politics and how you deal with immigrants.

Edit. It's not semantics. People may move to other countries as well. I don't see whole eastern European families unrooting themselves to rush to the UK. Did you suddenly have only Hungarian and Slovakian neighbours after the last round of EU admissions?

I still don't see any evidence that free movement of people is a terrible thing.

Free movement of people is neither a good or a bad thing, it is both good and bad. The bad things however IMO outweigh the good things by a very large margin, simply because the country that people are moving to has little or no influence over who comes to that country, which is why I and others call it an "open borders policy". Those whom move "freely" from one EU country to the next don't do so on a whim, and primarily do so for monetary gain, which is why I don't blame the immigrants, I blame the policy (the UK politicians).

My problems with unregulated "free movement" are as follows, and in no particular order.

The speed of immigration (vs the reasonably predictable population changes due to breeding) vastly outweighs the following provisions, housing, school places, medical care, job availability and many more things.

Immigrants usually locate themselves with other immigrants from the same country (or other immigrants from neighbouring countries that have the same/similar language, customs, religion or culture), and thus routinely enclave themselves and fail to integrate.

Money leaving the country is a less well recognised problem but should not be overlooked, a great many people who are "economical migrants" live on the minimum that they can get away with and send as much money as they can save "back home" this money is not being spent in the economy where it was created, this is the opposite of the now well understood "trickle-down-economy".

Begging, thievery, terrorism and organised crime, these are known problems that I don't wish to dwell on or cite examples of, but it is worth knowing that persons who commit such acts create an enormous amount of antagonism which is aimed squarely at the vast majority of law abiding immigrants, and has created some examples that I don't care to share with you that class whole nations of people as "criminals" in some form or another, such stereotyping can and likely will survive for decades to come, and many a plainly false whilst others appear from my personal experiences to be true - either way such things do not help integration of migrants at all.

Rapid breeding. This is a trifold problem, firstly many immigrants produce well in excess of the standard "2.4 children" (or whatever that number is now) which adds an ever increasing burden on the health and school systems which are both very expensive and even more expensive vs the tax revenue from the parents who are typically bellow average wage earners and as such use more tax money as a family than they pay in taxes. Secondly this further ghettoizes those immigrant families due to less money per family member to spend, thus reducing that families chance of moving "up in the world" and into areas that have few immigrants thus strengthening that enclave of immigrants.... you see the vicious circle. Thirdly, once those above average number of children grow up they produce a "baby boom" generation which causes its own problems as well as benefits and later on when they become elderly, just problems as we are experiencing with my parents "baby boom" generation. So you see, I am not just looking at this issue as today's problem, but the futures (10-30 years time) benefits and problems and even further down the road of just problems.

Nation financial problems, I refer you to a huge and rapid influx of people. Every 10-years there is a national census to identify how many people of what age live where ,whether they have dies or reproduced in the last 10-years. This is used by most governmental bodies to plan for the next 10-years, this fails dismally when the government "expects 30,000 eastern European migrants per month" and instead receives 300,000 per month. The system cannot cope, there is no money planned for building schools and hospitals for those additional people. The cost outlay alone is prohibitive especially when there has not been any money put into the governments pockets by these immigrant before arriving, the UK government like most runs its year-to-year accounts on previous years incomes, if there are no previous incomes for several million people that costs the country an enormous amount of money.

I will repeat this for those that missed the last few times I wrote this, "I don't blame the immigrants", I blame the system.

If the system was "selective and restrictive" then I would have no problem with immigration.

Some examples of restrictions: If there were an annual cap on the number of immigrants then planning for those immigrants would be far simpler than the case we have right now where we don't have any real idea of how many people will move here next year. Additionally ban anyone with a criminal record, we have enough of our own criminals already thank you. Restriction on bringing family members based on projected tax receipts from the working family members so as to not unfairly put a tax burden on everyone else. Restrict, or charge for the use of "national" services that those immigrants have not yet paid for until such a time that they have paid enough money into the system. Dont allow people in who cannot hold a conversation in English to a reasonable degree. Don't allow people in who are "unskilled" when there is already a large number of people unemployed. Dont allow people in unless they already have a job. All of these things are sensible things for any country to do, this might not be considered "fair", but I would also argue that its not "fair" for people to use systems such as the NHS when they have not contributed a single penny to the NHS.

You may note that I have mostly referred to the EU and eastern European migrants, that is simply because that information is well understood, we don't need to discuss Illegal-Immigrants, or and previous colonial issues, and also 500-million other people in the EU can discuss all of these points on a level playing field.

I see it primarily as a problem of inequality rather than an immigration policy problem. Many of the problems you describe could be solved, were just the distribution of wealth a little less unequal. Education battles overpopulation for example, but does it pay for the guys at the top to educate the poor? Not short term, that's for sure.

We suddenly have a surplus of "unwanted" people. Thats a consequence of the modern age I guess; efficiency rules supreme and control of the whole machine in the hands of a tiny rich minority.

What the solution looks like depends on your own situation I guess, and more importantly; how you perceive your situation to be. Reduce inequality, or reduce democracy. :)

Efficiency is this context is always a lie.When we speak of efficiency with regards to a motherboard for instance, we know what it means and it is good.But in this matter the value with which the word "efficiency" is laden masks its meaning. Because there are many kinds of efficiencies, the word is meaningless without a context. What is being optimized?Not that it ever makes sense in matters of government to optimize any one quantity at the expense of all else...

Vicotnik wrote:

control of the whole machine in the hands of a tiny rich minority.

It's no machine and no one stands aside from it. The ways of this control as well as the purpose of the controllers are all conditioned by the very "machine" you speak of.

Vicotnik wrote:

Reduce inequality, or reduce democracy.

It's always the same issue, isn't it?From this perpespective, one can truely understand what institutions which extend priviledges to one group while excluding another are actually for.

Efficiency is this context is always a lie.When we speak of efficiency with regards to a motherboard for instance, we know what it means and it is good.But in this matter the value with which the word "efficiency" is laden masks its meaning. Because there are many kinds of efficiencies, the word is meaningless without a context. What is being optimized?Not that it ever makes sense in matters of government to optimize any one quantity at the expense of all else...

The term is undefined, I give you that. But a lie? I dunno. :)Anyway, the way I used the word, I meant efficiency as viewed from above. From the risk capitalist perspective, if you will.

HFat wrote:

It's no machine and no one stands aside from it.

Again a matter of definition. I agree that it's possible to misunderstand, but this is always the case. If we are to define every term we use the discussion grinds to a halt, the meaningful discussion anyway. Better imho to get the gist of what is said. ;) To me the machine is this hierarchal structure where it's more important to obey than to think. We are all in it but it's possible to go outside it as well. Significant changes to the machine has been achieved by doing this, with reactions like the Trilateral Commission as a result. :p

HFat wrote:

It's always the same issue, isn't it?From this perpespective, one can truely understand what institutions which extend priviledges to one group while excluding another are actually for.

I see it primarily as a problem of inequality rather than an immigration policy problem. Many of the problems you describe could be solved, were just the distribution of wealth a little less unequal. Education battles overpopulation for example, but does it pay for the guys at the top to educate the poor? Not short term, that's for sure.

Inequality is a fact of life, some people are born unequal, some are brought up in unequal families, some in unequal villages, towns, cities or countries, some are born in an unequal time, inequality is a fact of life and its not about to disappear.

The re-distribution of wealth is a constant ongoing thing in the UK and elsewhere, for example in the UK right now you can earn £9,000 per year and only pay £150 of tax on those earnings, whereas someone who is earning £90,000 per year will give the taxman £30,800. That high earning person is paying income tax at a rate that is 205 times higher than that low wage earner, inequality can be found everywhere you look.

The world, the EU and the UK will continue to be unequal places, but having millions of people move from a poor country to a richer country does not suddenly make that poor country more equal, in fact it could make that country less equal with the following example. There are 2 identical families living side by side in an eastern European country, one of the husbands moves to the UK they live in cramped and uncomfortable conditions because they are saving as much money as they can to send home, they do this for 3-years and move back home, that family has bought their house outright (no mortgage) they have also got a second car, their standard of living has gone up exponentially compared to their otherwise identical neighbour - there is your example of inequality between those neighbors in eastern Europe - should that now well off family give half of their money to their neighbour to make that other family equal.?

Anyway, the way I used the word, I meant efficiency as viewed from above. From the risk capitalist perspective, if you will.

There are many ways to view efficiency from above as well.For instance, capitalists systematically try to undermine the efficiency of capital as a public good as well as the efficiency of aggregated capitals as a way for capitalists to appropriate value. But from the perspective of an individual capitalist, extracting rent is one of the most efficient way to use capital for that very purpose!Yes: the way the word is typically used in this context, it is a lie.

Vicotnik wrote:

If we are to define every term we use the discussion grinds to a halt, the meaningful discussion anyway. Better imho to get the gist of what is said.

We should define the abstractions which confuse and mislead, not every word! Whoever tried to define every word? It's fundamentally impossible (and not a practical issue as you suggest).We already went over this "gist" business, did we not?

Vicotnik wrote:

To me the machine is this hierarchal structure where it's more important to obey than to think.

There are many hierarchal structures (corporations, dictatorships, paramilitaries and so on). Some are headed by people who are part of a tiny rich minority and some are plainly not.There is no single hierarchal structure in the hands of a tiny rich minority. That's conspiracy theory.The governments of Sweden for instance is of course hierarchical but there's this thing called elections which is decidedly un-hierarchical. Most Swedes may vote for hierarchical parties and authoritarian politicians who are tools of a tiny rich minority nowadays, but that is not the same thing as a hierarchical government such as the PRC's. Fickle things, elections. For all their protestations, people who loathe hierarchies have participated in them... and occasionaly won.

Inequality is a fact of life, some people are born unequal, some are brought up in unequal families, some in unequal villages, towns, cities or countries, some are born in an unequal time, inequality is a fact of life and its not about to disappear.

But that is not to say we should not work towards a less unequal society, right? Sure there are changes to be made in any number of areas, regarding policy, integration issues and so on. But the fundamental problem is imo inequality.

andyb wrote:

The re-distribution of wealth is a constant ongoing thing in the UK and elsewhere, for example in the UK right now you can earn £9,000 per year and only pay £150 of tax on those earnings, whereas someone who is earning £90,000 per year will give the taxman £30,800. That high earning person is paying income tax at a rate that is 205 times higher than that low wage earner, inequality can be found everywhere you look.

The re-distribution of wealth is a constant ongoing thing, but sadly it's steadily going in the wrong direction; the rich tend to get richer, the poor poorer. A non-flat tax helps a little, but more is needed.

andyb wrote:

The world, the EU and the UK will continue to be unequal places, but having millions of people move from a poor country to a richer country does not suddenly make that poor country more equal, in fact it could make that country less equal with the following example. There are 2 identical families living side by side in an eastern European country, one of the husbands moves to the UK they live in cramped and uncomfortable conditions because they are saving as much money as they can to send home, they do this for 3-years and move back home, that family has bought their house outright (no mortgage) they have also got a second car, their standard of living has gone up exponentially compared to their otherwise identical neighbour - there is your example of inequality between those neighbors in eastern Europe - should that now well off family give half of their money to their neighbour to make that other family equal.?

It is happening though. Poor people will migrate to richer places, where life is perceived to be better. In your example, how low must the wages be in that eastern European country? But that's not a problem really is it? Because now we are kind of drifting into the area of free trade, and that is a good thing as we all know.

But that is not to say we should not work towards a less unequal society, right?

A balance has to be found between a "winner takes all" scenario (USA being the nearest example I can name) and Communism which we all now know does not work in reality as it would ideally, and the UK is in about the right area.

Quote:

The re-distribution of wealth is a constant ongoing thing, but sadly it's steadily going in the wrong direction; the rich tend to get richer, the poor poorer. A non-flat tax helps a little, but more is needed.

Now we are talking economics. Rich people get taxed vastly more than the poor and on average use less of the services their tax money is spent on than their poorer counterparts, I see no evidence that the wealth gap is getting "too wide" especially as there is a gigantic safety net for those who are sick or out of work. Also punitive taxes don't work, just look at the situation in France as an example, and compare that to the UK where the top rate of tax was reduced to 45% from 50%, the UK government now receives more tax revenue from the top tax payers, the sweet-spot for the top rate of tax is 40%-45%, either way taxation has nothing to do with mass-immigration.

Quote:

It is happening though. Poor people will migrate to richer places, where life is perceived to be better. In your example, how low must the wages be in that eastern European country? But that's not a problem really is it? Because now we are kind of drifting into the area of free trade, and that is a good thing as we all know.

Everything is relative. The wages and housing costs are roughly in line with each other. The example eastern European man who moves to the UK for 3-years to earn far higher wages in the country he moved to, to buy a dirt cheap house back home is a serious imbalance compared to someone who was born and raised in the UK and gets the same wage as that immigrant does, but is trying to buy a house that costs a fortune will see things differently.

A balance has to be found between a "winner takes all" scenario (USA being the nearest example I can name) and Communism which we all now know does not work in reality as it would ideally, and the UK is in about the right area.

I don't think a balance between authoritarian right and authoritarian left is the answer. I like libertarian left myself, surprise-surprise. Why not give something like anarcho-syndicalism a chance? :)

andyb wrote:

Now we are talking economics. Rich people get taxed vastly more than the poor and on average use less of the services their tax money is spent on than their poorer counterparts, I see no evidence that the wealth gap is getting "too wide" especially as there is a gigantic safety net for those who are sick or out of work.

That safety net is being eroded. We all have different utopias, but in mine stuff like free health care for all is a given. We are not there yet, and we will never get there with this neo-liberal way of thinking. Redistribution of wealth in the form of money is needed, but I rather see a move away from money.

andyb wrote:

Everything is relative. The wages and housing costs are roughly in line with each other. The example eastern European man who moves to the UK for 3-years to earn far higher wages in the country he moved to, to buy a dirt cheap house back home is a serious imbalance compared to someone who was born and raised in the UK and gets the same wage as that immigrant does, but is trying to buy a house that costs a fortune will see things differently.

Yes, but this is an artifact of the system. To solve this problem we need to reduce democracy (make it difficult for people to freely move about, work, live) or reduce the inequality that makes this an issue.

I don't think a balance between authoritarian right and authoritarian left is the answer. I like libertarian left myself, surprise-surprise. Why not give something like anarcho-syndicalism a chance?

I would not say that the UK is particularly authoritarian, I am sure you can and will give me examples to prove me wrong, but I can do the reverse, so lets not bother and get back to the topic at hand.

The safety net is not being eroded, it is being "managed" in a dire economical situation, whilst at the same time the gap between rich and poor has actually narrowed... I bet that caught you by surprise, it did me.

Quote:

but in mine stuff like free health care for all is a given. We are not there yet, and we will never get there with this neo-liberal way of thinking.

We already have a free healthcare system with even more free stuff added in for the least well off.

Quote:

Redistribution of wealth in the form of money is needed, but I rather see a move away from money.

That redistribution of wealth is primarily done via taxation, and as I have already shown, the wealthy contribute vastly more to the tax system than anyone else. "A move away from money".... a barter system.? Bitcoins.? How would such a system work, how would the government gain revenue, how would trade happen internationally with other who do use money.? PS: Feel free to create your own thread on this subject.

Quote:

Yes, but this is an artifact of the system. To solve this problem we need to reduce democracy (make it difficult for people to freely move about, work, live) or reduce the inequality that makes this an issue.

You keep on mentioning "redistribution of wealth", but have not given an example of how you would go about doing that - the government already does that via taxation, and that is the only way that I can see it being done with out any of the following happening: (1) punitive taxation, (2) draconian measures to remove money from rich people (land grab, theft), (3) flat wages (communist style), (4) the destruction of entrepreneurship by valuing everyone the same when they are clearly not.

You keep on mentioning "redistribution of wealth", but have not given an example of how you would go about doing that - the government already does that via taxation, and that is the only way that I can see it being done with out any of the following happening: (1) punitive taxation, (2) draconian measures to remove money from rich people (land grab, theft), (3) flat wages (communist style), (4) the destruction of entrepreneurship by valuing everyone the same when they are clearly not.

I was thinking (5) gift economy, from the bottom up. :)

I know, we are getting way off topic. My initial point was that in my view the immigration problem you describe and want to discuss in this thread, is a problem of inequality. I'm not very interested in broad political discussion either, but out of curiosity it would be interesting to know where you stand politically. I started a new thread about this here, take a look.- viewtopic.php?f=18&t=66338

Sadly that will only exist in small pockets or communities, and of course between friends and relatives as it has always done and will not (in our lifetimes) get anywhere near "money" as a way of paying for things, not least because governments all over the world can only gain revenue from taxation, giving them some old clothes that you no longer want wont help much, but it will help friends, relatives and charities.

As far as mass immigration is concerned, I appreciate your honesty in simply disagreeing that its a problem, and that the real problem is inequality, but I would like to pin you down and get a couple of straight answers to a couple of questions.

(1). Is it right to take money from people who have "contributed", and give it to those who have not.?

(2). Is it right to place extra burdens on people who have spent a lifetime trying to remove the existing burdens and better the lives of themselves and their families.

Sadly that will only exist in small pockets or communities, and of course between friends and relatives as it has always done and will not (in our lifetimes) get anywhere near "money" as a way of paying for things, not least because governments all over the world can only gain revenue from taxation, giving them some old clothes that you no longer want wont help much, but it will help friends, relatives and charities.

I think it can exist in a deeper way. And since I see this as the only "solution" long term, I hope that it will happen. It will take a miracle though, or a huge crisis.

andyb wrote:

(1). Is it right to take money from people who have "contributed", and give it to those who have not.?

Yes of course. Letting the handicapped starve to death is not an option. But it's not taking exactly, since we in a democratic society agree to use public funds for this.

andyb wrote:

(2). Is it right to place extra burdens on people who have spent a lifetime trying to remove the existing burdens and better the lives of themselves and their families.

(2). Is it right to place extra burdens on people who have spent a lifetime trying to remove the existing burdens and better the lives of themselves and their families.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example?

How about this: rent is a burden, right? So imagine a working couple who wants to escape that burden, saves money to buy a condo made very expensive by a real-estate bubble and then works to pay the mortgage.Is it right to tax this couple whose net assets are still way lower than the average of the country they live in because they have the gall not to suffer landlords gladly while the rich cash in profits from "risky" mortgages (which are in the aggregate effectively insured by the state) and drive up real-estate prices?

Well the game is what it is. I rent my apartment and consider that less of a burden than a loan with interest. In a market where prices varies a lot perhaps other factors should be included to determine what the tax should be.

The point being that the burden of a mortage is diminishing.Renting from a landlord perpetuates the burden with no end in sight.

Of course, ideally people could purchase home without being burdened with a mortgage... which is what I was rather unsubtly getting at by comparing taxes on homeowners to the profits from mortgage banking, isn't it?

Yes of course. Letting the handicapped starve to death is not an option. But it's not taking exactly, since we in a democratic society agree to use public funds for this.

A great many handicapped people are simply not able to work (or there are not provisions in business to allow them to), and those people are looked after by the state. Instead of refining my question in minute detail, I shall use a slightly crude question with parallel reasoning (hypothetical).

Scenario: There is a national pot of money that everyone invests into, and everyone receives money back from, a large part of the money put into that pot gets given to the children of the contributors. Is it right to give money from that pot to people who have never contributed money to that pot, and their parents have never contributed money to that pot.?

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example?

The burdens are all financial based (in this example, to keep things simpler).

Everything costs money, you need a job to earn money, you need a house to live in, you need to earn enough money to pay to live (food etc), you need to save money (for when shit happens, holidays, future plans etc). Suddenly there are far more people competing for jobs and housing, your burden (taxes) goes up, the cost of housing goes up, your wages don't increase anywhere near the rate of inflation, you become poorer.

A reasonable proportion of "your" problems are directly linked to that sudden increase in people who you are competing for jobs and housing with, is it right that "your" burden should be increased with you directly loosing out because of a rapid influx of competitor for jobs and housing.?

Quote:

Well the game is what it is. I rent my apartment and consider that less of a burden than a loan with interest. In a market where prices varies a lot perhaps other factors should be included to determine what the tax should be.

Property ownership/vs rental is an issue that has being going on for a long time, in the UK almost everyone who can (very hefty deposit needed) buys a property via mortgage because its often cheaper, its your property so you can do what you like with it, you cant be kicked out (unless you fail to keep up with mortgage payments), you can leave it to your kids when you die etc. Rental costs in the UK have skyrocketed in London especially (due to mass overcrowding), which directly increases the cost of housing in and around London (and other cities) - your Town/City/Country may vary.

Scenario: There is a national pot of money that everyone invests into, and everyone receives money back from, a large part of the money put into that pot gets given to the children of the contributors. Is it right to give money from that pot to people who have never contributed money to that pot, and their parents have never contributed money to that pot.?

That is the essence of being humanitarian. If I were disabled -- and that can happen any time through accidents or disease -- I would want to be looked after. By the way, the proportion of abusers of the social system isn't very big. I believe it is as little as 0.7% of the total benefits budget.

Quote:

The burdens are all financial based (in this example, to keep things simpler).

Everything costs money, you need a job to earn money, you need a house to live in, you need to earn enough money to pay to live (food etc), you need to save money (for when shit happens, holidays, future plans etc). Suddenly there are far more people competing for jobs and housing, your burden (taxes) goes up, the cost of housing goes up, your wages don't increase anywhere near the rate of inflation, you become poorer.

Net immigration to the UK has been steadily climbing, not jumping. For London (which seems to be the main issue), it has been doing so since the 80ies and it was easily predictable that it would continue to rise. And if it weren't for the bank cock-up and the consequential stagnation and recession, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Quote:

Rental costs in the UK have skyrocketed in London especially (due to mass overcrowding), which directly increases the cost of housing in and around London (and other cities) - your Town/City/Country may vary.

There are a couple of reason for that. Not enough infrastructure projects, not enough investments elsewhere (why would anyone want to move to Birmingham or Manchester, or even further north?) and the rental market isn't regulated. Most other countries have, very sensibly I dare say, coupled the rental prices to the consumer price index.

What's your solution, besides capping immigration, Andy? Let the invalids beg in the streets? Look to countries without decent social support for the unfortunate and see what the turn to - crime.

Scenario: There is a national pot of money that everyone invests into, and everyone receives money back from, a large part of the money put into that pot gets given to the children of the contributors. Is it right to give money from that pot to people who have never contributed money to that pot, and their parents have never contributed money to that pot.?

Yes, this is the essence of being humanitarian as Cistron says.

andyb wrote:

Everything costs money, you need a job to earn money, you need a house to live in, you need to earn enough money to pay to live (food etc), you need to save money (for when shit happens, holidays, future plans etc). Suddenly there are far more people competing for jobs and housing, your burden (taxes) goes up, the cost of housing goes up, your wages don't increase anywhere near the rate of inflation, you become poorer.

A reasonable proportion of "your" problems are directly linked to that sudden increase in people who you are competing for jobs and housing with, is it right that "your" burden should be increased with you directly loosing out because of a rapid influx of competitor for jobs and housing.?

I think that much of this is an illusion. Sure, I have a job and a lot of money saved. But at the same time I want to escape this money thing. I work part time at my job, and have time for other projects on the side (growing food etc) and since I don't use money very much I end up with a surplus. I guess you could say I live a little bit in one of those "small pockets or communities" although most of my friends don't live like this at all. My situation is a bit extreme also, because I'm alone. No wife, no kids (yet). Still I think that reducing costs and money use in general is a good way to go for many, instead of mainly focusing on the other end; money coming in. It's a shift in the mind more than anything. People are very generous by their nature, and not just to friends and kin. Money disrupts this a bit, as does scarcity (real or imagined).

Lack of jobs and housing is not fundamentally a problem of too many people the way I see it.

andyb wrote:

Property ownership/vs rental is an issue that has being going on for a long time, in the UK almost everyone who can (very hefty deposit needed) buys a property via mortgage because its often cheaper, its your property so you can do what you like with it, you cant be kicked out (unless you fail to keep up with mortgage payments), you can leave it to your kids when you die etc. Rental costs in the UK have skyrocketed in London especially (due to mass overcrowding), which directly increases the cost of housing in and around London (and other cities) - your Town/City/Country may vary.

Yeah, UK is a bit like the US when it comes to renting vs owning your home. I think in the rest of Europe, and in Sweden, renting is more common. I guess this has to do with economics as well as how protected you are as a tenant (and what responsibilities you have as an owner).

That is the essence of being humanitarian. If I were disabled -- and that can happen any time through accidents or disease -- I would want to be looked after.

That is what the system is there for, and almost no-one wants to see that change.

Quote:

By the way, the proportion of abusers of the social system isn't very big. I believe it is as little as 0.7% of the total benefits budget.

That is what I believe the number to also be (according to the press), but that has little to do with my point.

Quote:

Net immigration to the UK has been steadily climbing, not jumping. For London (which seems to be the main issue), it has been doing so since the 80ies and it was easily predictable that it would continue to rise.

Climbing vs jumping is relative, the UK population increased "naturally" by around 3.5%, and increased an additional 3.5% by immigration, that's just between 2001-2011, most of the population increase occurred in the south east (London and surrounding areas), most of the rest happened in other cities, this is the highest population increase rate for 50-years, so yes I would suggest that whichever way you want to describe the immigration rate to the UK, it is considerably faster in both total numbers and as a percentage of the population - the net immigration rate is nearly 4x as high as it was in the 1980's.

Quote:

And if it weren't for the bank cock-up and the consequential stagnation and recession, there wouldn't have been a problem.

I don't believe that for one moment, its not just kids that have "growing pains", its communities, cities and whole nations as well. This is not to say that the bank cock-up etc wouldn't have been a problem.

Quote:

There are a couple of reason for that. Not enough infrastructure projects, not enough investments elsewhere (why would anyone want to move to Birmingham or Manchester, or even further north?) and the rental market isn't regulated. Most other countries have, very sensibly I dare say, coupled the rental prices to the consumer price index.

I don't disagree with you, but if the population of the UK had increased in natural terms "only" over the last decade, the problem would be considerably less severe, and the government would have had more spare money for house-building projects etc.

Quote:

What's your solution, besides capping immigration

That is the most obvious one, coupled of course with the persons immigrating would need to be of value to the UK, not be criminals, be intent on integrating, be of a reasonable working age with the ability to work, have a good grasp of English, and not bring their entire extended family with them, and limit where they can live and work depending on whats available.

Quote:

Let the invalids beg in the streets?

Absolutely not, I would never suggest such a thing.

Quote:

Look to countries without decent social support for the unfortunate and see what the turn to - crime.

Our social support is more than adequate, what I don't want to see is that social support being extended to immigrants who have not contributed, which it is currently - something that we can ill afford.

Quote:

Yeah, UK is a bit like the US when it comes to rent vs owning. I think in the rest of Europe, and in Sweden, renting is more common. I guess this has to do with economics as well as how protected you are as a tenant (and what responsibilities you have as an owner).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum